THE LEGACY OF APHTHONIOS, HERMOGENES AND PSEUDO-MENANDER: ASPECTS OF BYZANTINE RHETORIC UNDER THE PALAIOLOGOI

Introduction

Around the middle of the 14th century the Cypriot Scholar George Lapithes wrote a long didactic poem, in which he gave moral and practical rules for private and public life; in the section of the poem concerning the skills one should have in order to succeed in life, we read:

At first you should pursue those arts that are common and necessary to all, and be trained in them. These are rhetoric and the art of law. No one who lacks these (skills) can ever act the right way in his life. For, how can one talk to his fellow-men, when he doesnt know how to speak? How can one have dealings with others, when he ignores the law?1

For Lapithes rhetoric is, along with the art of law, a prerequisite for a successful life, which in its turn points to the importance given to rhetoric in his times, that is in the Palaiologan period; it is rhetoric that helps one get/keep in contact with other people, and as such it can be considered as the fundament of social/public life.

The fundamental role of rhetoric in Byzantine intellectual life and society in general was not, of course, stressed for the first time in the age of the Palaiologoi, al-though the Palaiologan, along with the Comnenian era was one of the richest in rheto-rical production. What Lapithes says here is what H.-G. Beck has summarized for the whole Byzantine culture as follows:

Rhetoric was for the Byzantines equal to paideia The logos peistikos taught by rhetoric was the fundament of social life and of every communal and political organi-zation. The rhetorical speech, the logos was the logically structured expression of the humans inner thoughts and images, and as such it served the communication bet-

1 See George Lapithes, Improvised verses, 147-153, ed. A. Chatzisabbas,

, Paris 2001, p. 84: / , . / - . / , , / - . / ; / ;. On George Lapithes, see PLP no. 14479.

2

ween the members of the society. Thus, the rhetor was in the sense of Isocrates the ideal teacher, the ideal politician, and the ideal statesman.2

Education and politics are two keywords one should have in mind when deal-ing with Byzantine rhetoric, and rhetoric in general. The connection goes back to classical Greece, where the sophists taught rhetoric to young aristocrats as a means of achieving social and political advancement. With Isocrates rhetoric claimed its part in the curriculum of every learned man, while with Aristotle it took a standard place in the education provided by philosophical schools. Speaking (and writing) logically and elegantly was a matter of (social and political) prestige and influence: in order to be socially and politically effective, one should speak (and write) in a way that was styli-stically elegant and syntactically correct; it was rhetoric that taught the art of elegant and, thus, effective discourse.3

The role of rhetoric in education was strengthened by the trend called atticism that appeared by the end of the first century A.D., and claimed the superiority of pu-re Attic language, that is a language close to the old Attic dialect, against the simpl-er language that had developped since the Hellenistic period. In this context rhetoric undertook the task of teaching the methods of Attic discourse, through the study of ancient Greek authors.4

Rhetorical education, which--as shown above--was synonymous to classical educa-tion, was adopted in the 4th century by the Byzantine state and Church, and became hereafter one of the most distinctive and all-pervasive elements of Byzantine intel-lectual life and culture in general. Both the state and the Church recruited their offi-cials from among the better-trained students in rhetoric, because the drawing up of official documents (laws, treaties, ecclesiastical documents and other public records) presupposed a very high level of prose that was clear, precise, and elegant at the same time.5 These documents propagated the official ideology of the Byzantine state, whe-ther political or ecclesiastical, and it is especially this role of rhetoric as a means of stabilizing the system that made it ubiquitous throughout the Byzantine period.6

2 See Beck, H.G., Antike Beredsamkeit und byzantinische Kallilogia, Antike und Abendland 15 (1969),

98 (translated and slightly paraphrased). 3 On the origins and evolution of rhetoric, see Hunger, Literatur, vol. 1, pp. 65-66. 4 Cf. Hunger, Literatur, vol. 1, pp. 67-68. 5 See Wilson, N.G., Scholars of Byzantium, London 1983, pp. 2-3. 6 On the social and political function of rhetoric in Byzantium, see Hunger, Literatur, vol. 1, pp. 69-74,

and id., Aspekte, pp. 12-26.

3

The flourishing of rhetoric under the Palaiologoi: prerequisites and general characteristics

The recapture of Constantinople in 1261, which marks officially the beginning of the Palaiologan period, was somehow equal to a re-establishment of the Byzantine state, although the sense of (political and cultural) continuity of the Empire had not been lost during the period of the Nicaean exile. Given the primarily political role of rheto-ric that was outlined above, it does not surprise us that the education of lay and eccle-siastical officials was one of the priorities of the first Palaiologan emperor Michael VIII, and that rhetoric held the central place in the framework of the restored educa-tional system.

The revival of learning (and rhetoric) after 1261 is linked to the person of the megas logothetes George Akropolites,7 who was already a distinguished scholar in the Nicaean Empire and teacher of the emperor Theodore II Laskaris. The information about Akro-polites teaching activity derives mainly from the autobiography of his student Geor-ge/Gregory of Cyprus, as well as from the latters encomium on Michael VIII Palaiolo-gos. According to Gregory, Akropolites was the most erudite man of his time and he was deeply concerned with the drought of learning in the newly recaptured Byza-ntine capital; thus, the emperor relieved him of his duties in the civil service, so that he could devote himself to his teaching activities.8 Among the materials taught by Akropolites we find, of course, rhetoric, that was considered one of the highest disci-plines and its place in the curriculum was after the teaching of syllogistics and analy-tics, that is the first level of aristotelian philosophy, and before proceeding to the higher degrees of the teachings of the Stageirite.9

The Church also showed its concern for the education of its future officials, and the first step taken towards this direction was the appointment of Manuel Holobolos as

7 On George Akropolites, see PLP no. 518. 8 See Gregory of Cyprus, Autobiography, ed. Lameere, La tradition manuscrite, p. 185, lines 7-11:

, , , , - , -, and id., Encomium on Michael VIII, ed. Boissonade, Anecdota Graeca, vol. 1, pp. 352, line 2-354, line 5. On Gregory of Cyprus, see PLP no. 4590.

9 See Gregory of Cyprus, Autobiography, ed. Lameere, La tradition manuscrite, p. 185, lines 20-23: , Cf. Constantinides, Higher Education, pp. 32-35, id., Rhetoric, p. 50, and Mergiali, Lensei-gnement, pp. 15-16.

4

rhetor around 1265.10 Holobolos was officially appointed as a teacher in logic, but his duties as rhetor of the Church were rather linked to the imperial ceremonial, since he delivered orations and poems for the emperor on special occasions, and it was through his writings that the official imperial image of Michael VIII was articulated and disseminated, an element which points again to the close connection between rhetoric and politics/the imperial court.11 The flourishing of rhetoric under Michael VIII is especially praised by Holobolos in one of the orations he delivered in honour of the emperor, where he observes that the torches of rhetoric that had (long) blown out, light now again.12

We do not possess any evidence about other Palaiologan emperors stimulating and supporting the study of rhetoric until the times of Manuel II, who intervened in favour of the school run by John Argyropoulos;13 nevertheless the information we have--especially from the rich correspondence between the scholars--proves that rhetoric remained an essential part of the so-called enkyklios paideia throughout the Palaiologan era, until the fall of the Byzantine Empire.14 Another factor that also sup-ported the flourishing of rhetoric in the period under examination was the intensifi-cation of the study of the classical past, which we usually describe with the term Pa-laiologan Renaissance. The classical heritage was, of course, present in the Byzantine culture in all its phases, but during the Palaiologan period the links to the classical past were strengthened and hellenism, that is the consciousness of being heirs of the ancient Greek language and culture, often worked for the Byzantines as a counter-balance to the gradual political decline of their state.15 In this framework grammar, poetry, and rhetoric were the disciplines that offered the keys to the knowledge of the classical/hellenic past.

10 See Constantinides, Higher Education, pp. 52-56, id., Rhetoric, p. 45, and Mergiali, Lenseignement, p. 30. On Manuel Holobolos, see PLP no. 21047.

11 Cf. Angelov, D., The confession of Michael VIII Palaiologos and King David. On a Little Known Work of Manuel Holobolos, Jahrbuch der sterreichischen Byzantinistik 56 (2006), 204.

12 See Manuel Holobolos, Encomium III on Michael VIII, ed. Treu, Manuelis Holoboli Orationes, p. 96, lines 4-5: ; ; On Holobolos orations in honour of Michael VII see also below.

13 Cf. Mergiali, Lenseignement, p. 190. 14 Cf. Mergiali, Lenseignement, pp. 27, 93, 163, 230, and passim. 15 See evenko, I., The Decline of Byzantium Seen Through the Eyes of its Intellectuals, Dumbarton

Oaks Papers 15 (1961), 172-75, id., The Palaiologan Renaissance, in Treadgold, W. (ed.), Renaissances be-fore the Renaissance: Cultural Revivals of Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages, Stanford 1984, pp. 162-63, Hun-ger, H., Klassizistische Tendenzen in der byzantinischen Literatur des 14. Jh., in Actes du XIV Congrs International des tudes byzantines, vol. 1, Bucarest 1974, p. 147, and Vryonis, Sp. (Jr.), Byzantine Cultural Self-Consciousness in the Fifteenth Century, in uri, S./Mouriki, D. (eds.), The Twilight of Byzantium. Aspects of Cultural and Religious History in the Late Byzantine Empire, Princeton 1991, pp. 5-14.

5

Throughout the Palaiologan period we read about the so-called theatra, that is cir-cles of intellectuals, who gathered to present their rhetorical works, and to listen to the works of their colleagues being performed.16 At the top of these theatra stood that of the emperor, at which every rhetor aspired at the prospect of improving his social prestige and status. A rhetorical performance before the emperor has often marked the beginning of a career in the civil/imperial service, as in the case of Theo-dore Metochites, the most distinguished scholar and powerful statesman in the court of Andronikos II Palaiologos.17 But except for the court or other private theatra, the rhetors of the Palaiologan era claimed sometimes the right to address a wider audien-ce, that is certain urban circles, and to take a stand on social or even political matters of their times, thus reviving the so-called genos symbouleutikon that had fallen into disuse since the Roman Imperial Period.18

If we count as rhetors those that have composed at least one piece of secular ora-tory (theoretical texts and rhetorical exercises included), we can speak of about 70 (or a little more) out of the about 180 known scholars of the Palaiologan period that have tried their hand in the field of rhetoric, that is c.38-40 per cent.19 Among them we find about 10 persons which are known to us only from their rhetorical works, mostly en-comia/epitaphs on emperors/members of the imperial family or other prominent in-dividuals. As for the social status of the authors, they came from the three basic social groups, where the intellectuals of the time belonged:20 they were either state/court officials/dignitaries (among them high-ranking ones, such as George and Constantine Akropolites, Theodore Metochites, Nikephoros Choumnos, and Demetrios Kydones) or ecclesiastics, that is learned monks, church officials, metropolitans or even patriarchs, while a relatively small number earned their living as free-lance teachers of grammar and rhetoric. Thus, the connection with the court and/or the Church, an inherent characteristic of Byzantine rhetoric as described above, is also reflected in the social status of its representatives.

The absolute number of rhetorical texts produced in the Palaiologan period is not easy to define: those surviving amount to over 300, but we also have evidence about

16 On the term theatron in the Palaiologan period, see Gaul, Magistros, pp. 18-53. 17 On Theodore Metochites and his rhetorical work, see below. 18 On this development, see Gaul, Magistros, pp. 172-74. 19 For a list of the intellectuals in the Palaiologan period, see Matschke, K.P./Tinnefeld, Fr., Die

Gesellschaft im spten Byzanz. Gruppen, Strukturen und Lebensformen, Kln 2001, pp. 373-85. A list of the rhetors is provided in the Appendix at the end of this chapter.

20 For the social status of the intellectuals in the Palaiologan period, see the classic article of I. ev-enko, Society and Intellectual Life in the 14th Century, in Actes du XIV Congrs International des tudes byzantines, vol. 1, Bucarest 1974, pp. 69-92.

6

rhetorical pieces that have not come down to us. The lions share belongs, of course, to epideictic oratory, the rhetorical genre that was almost exclusively cultivated in Byzantium.21 Encomia and addresses to the emperors, along with epitaphs are the two predominant genres, in which the rhetorical production of the Palaiologan era almost surpasses that of all other periods of Byzantine literature. Encomia (ekphraseis) of ci-ties--either free standing or integrated into other texts--also flourished for the first ti-me in this period. On the other hand, the historical circumstances of the time often gave the occasion for the composition of speeches referring to contemporary events, such as the siege or the fall of Byzantine cities to the enemies, but also for the compo-sition of advisory speeches addressed to wider audiences, as already mentioned above. Even in the field of the so-called school rhetoric the Palaiologan era has some in-novations to display, such as the revival of the so-called meletai or gymnasiai, a type of advanced rhetorical exercises that had been neglected since the 6th century.22

Theory of rhetoric, rhetorical manuscripts and exercises

The rich rhetorical production of the Palaiologan era presupposed, of course, a good rhetorical training, which in its turn was based on handbooks containing the theory of rhetoric, that is the rules for the composition of various kinds of rhetorical texts. Throughout the Byzantine millenium the teaching of rhetoric was based on certain key texts of the 3rd and 4th centuries A.D., more specifically on the various treatises of Hermogenes of Tarsos, the so-called Corpus Hermogenianum, and the Progymnasmata of Aphthonios. These canon-texts were copied in the next centuries and served as teaching material, while they generated a significant number of commentaries, which testify to their importance in the instruction process.23 Apart from the works of Aph-thonios and Hermogenes, the treatises attributed to Menander of Laodikeia on the various forms of epideictic oratory also provided an important tool for rhetorical composition,24 especially if we take into consideration the almost exclusive cultivation of epideictic oratory in Byzantium, but they never gained a place in the rhetorical curriculum, and only rarely they were included in handbooks of rhetoric, such as the Synopsis by Joseph the Philosopher, which we will discuss below.

The first to deal with the theory of rhetoric in the Palaiologan period was Maximos Planoudes (1255-1305), a learned monk and one of the most erudite scholars of the ti-

21 On this development, see Hunger, Literatur, vol. 1, pp. 67-68, and id., Aspekte, p. 4. 22 On the genre of meletai in the Palailogan period, see below. 23 Cf. Hunger, Literatur, vol. 1, pp. 75-88. 24 Cf. Hunger, Literatur, vol. 1, pp. 88-89.

7

me, who was also active as a teacher.25 Planoudes re-edited the whole Hermogenian corpus, along with a commentary based on the so-called P-Corpus, as well as on John Doxapatres commentary on Aphthonios, an he wrote his own Prolegomena to the work.26 Although not original, Planoudes work is indicative of what was regarded as useful in the study of rhetoric at the end of the 13th century,27 and it also points to the traditional character of rhetorical education in Byzantium.

At the beginning of the 14th century another erudite scholar, Demetrios Triklini-os,28 who was based in Thessalonike, copied in his own hand a manuscript containing the works of Aphthonios and Hermogenes. This manuscript is the codex Oxoniensis, New College 258, and its copying was completed in August 1308.29

The importance given to rhetorical education in the Palaiologan period as a part of ones universal learning can be verified in the case of Joseph the Philosopher, or Rha-kendytes (c.1280-1330).30 Joseph was born in Ithaka and came later in Thessaloniki, where he became a monk and teacher, while he also spent some years in Constantino-ple. He was a person highly esteemed by his contemporaries and he was even offered the patriarchate, which he declined. His only surviving work is his Encyclopedia, an introduction to the liberal arts, such as physics, anthropology, mathematics, ethics, and theology; in this context rhetoric is the first discipline to be treated, and it is this part of the whole Encyclopedia that has been mostly transmitted in the manuscripts.31 Interestingly Joseph devoted a chapter of his Synopsis of Rhetoric to epideictic oratory, deriving from Menander,32 as already pointed out above.

25 On Maximos Planoudes, see PLP no. 23308, and recently Taxidis, I., .

corpus ( , 58), Thessaloniki 2012. 26 The work has been edited by Walz, Rhetores Graeci, vol. 5, pp. 212-610 (cf. also Rabe, Prolegomenon

Sylloge, pp. 64-73 [Prolegomena]). On the character of the work and its sources, see Rabe, Rhetoren-Cor-pora, pp. 332-37, Wendel, C. Planudes Maximos, Realenzyklopdie 20 (1950), 2230-32, and Kennedy, Greek Rhetoric, pp. 323-24.

27 Cf. Kennedy, Greek Rhetoric, p. 324. 28 On Demetrios Triklinios, see PLP no. 29317, Mergiali, Lenseignement, pp. 55-57, and Fryde, Renais-

sance, pp. 268-94. 29 For the manuscript, see Turyn, A., Dated Greek Manuscripts of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries

in the Libraries of Great Britain, Washington 1980, pp. 71-72. 30 On Joseph the Philosopher, see PLP no. 9078, Mergiali, Lenseignement, pp. 85-86, and Fryde, Renai-

ssance, pp. 208-10. 31 On the Encyclopedia, see Terzaghi, N., Sulla composizione dellEnciclopedia del filosofo Giusep-

pe, Studi italiani di filologia classica 10 (1902), 121-32, and Criscuolo, R., Note sullEnciclopedia del filo-sofo Giuseppe, Byzantion 44 (1975), 255-81. The Synopsis has been edited by Walz, Rhetores Graeci, vol. 3, pp. 465-569; on this, see de Falco, V., Sulla Rhetorica del filosofo Giuseppe, Historia 5 (1931), 627-43.

32 Cf. Walz, Rhetores Graeci, vol. 3, pp. 547-58. See also Toth, Rhetorical Theatron, pp. 433-34.

8

A Synopsis of Rhetoric has also been preserved under the name of Matthew Blasta-res, a priest-monk from Thessaloniki, who was active c.1335-50.33 The text, except for the Prolegomena, is still unedited, and survives in the codex Paris. gr. 2830 (fols. 201r-216v); it is rather a summary based on Blastares reading of the rhetorical manuals.34 Later in the century an anonymous (teacher of rhetoric?) compiled a new collection of theoretical texts on rhetoric, along with scholia, which presupposes the rhetorical corpus of Maximos Planoudes; it is the so-called Rhetor Monacensis (from the codex Monac. gr. 505, where the compilation survives).35

With John Chortasmenos we move to the beginning of the 15th century.36 The fa-mous bibliophile and copyist, who became later metropolitan of Selybria, wrote his own Prolegomena to rhetoric, which he included in his homebook, the codex Vind. Suppl. gr. 75; he excerpted among others from the works of John Doxapatres and Ma-ximos Planoudes.37 In another manuscript, the codex Riccard. gr. 58, Chortasmenos appears as the author of a commentary to the Progymnasmata of Aphthonios; the ma-nuscript also contains excerpts from Hermogenes and from Aristoteles Rhetoric.38

A younger contemporary of Chortasmenos was John Argyropoulos, mostly known for his teaching of Greek philosophy in Italy.39 At the beginning of his career he was named head of a school in Constantinople, where he must have taught grammar and rhetoric.40 For the purposes of his teaching he must have composed his Prolegomena to the Progymnasmata of Aphthonios, which are based on John Doxapatres and the Souda-Lexicon.41

Finally, the rhetorical manuals attributed to Matthew Kamariotes may fall out of the limits of the Byzantine era. They are probably connected with Kamariotes teach-ing activities as megas rhetor of the Patriarchate, a post that he was granted sometime after the fall of Constantinople to the Turks.42

33 On Matthew Blastares, see PLP no. 2808. 34 See Paschos, P.B., , Thessaloniki 1978, pp. 115-

17. 35 For the Rhetor Monacensis, see Rabe, Rhetoren-Corpora, pp. 345-57. 36 On John Chortasmenos, see PLP no. 30897. 37 See Hunger, Chortasmenos, pp. 29-30. 38 See Hunger, Chortasmenos, pp. 30-31. 39 On John Argyropoulos, see PLP no. 1267. 40 Cf. Mergiali, Lenseignement, p. 190. 41 For the text of the Prolegomena, see Rabe, Prolegomenon Sylloge, pp. 156-58, and Lampros, -

, pp. 175-80. See also Hunger, Literatur, p. 79. 42 On Matthew Kamariotes, see PLP no. 10776. His Synopsis of Aphthonios has been edited by Walz,

Rhetores Graeci, vol. 1, pp. 121-26, while his Synopsis of Hermogenes is to be found ibid., vol. 6, pp. 601-44. On Kamariotes rhetorical works, see also Hunger, Literatur, vol. 1, pp. 79 and 88.

9

The scholars of the Palaiologan period were not only interested in the traditional theoretical texts on rhetoric, but they also showed their concern in acquiring and producing manuscripts containing the works of the ancient rhetors, such as Demo-sthenes, Ailios Aristeides and Libanios, who also served as their models in the rhetori-cal praxis. This concern derived primarily from the lack of books after the destruction of 1204, and it was enhanced by the rising clacissism of the time.

The case of Gregory of Cyprus, who had studied rhetoric under George Akropoli-tes43 and later became patriarch of Constantinople (1283-89) is illuminating in this aspect: in his correspondence, dating before but even after his accession to the pa-triarchal throne, Gregory speaks about his efforts to acquire or to prepare his own co-pies with works of the ancient rhetors, primarily Ailios Aristeides, who became fashio-nable among the scholars of the time. Five of his letters refer to Aristeides: Gregory possessed his own copy with the orations of the rhetor, consisting probably of two volumes, which he sought to collate with other copies circulating among his conte-mporaries, in order to prepare a model edition.44 He also undertook to correct a co-py of Ailios Aristeides that was in the possession of the learned princess Theodora Ra-oulaina, and could be identified with the codex Vatic. gr. 1899, an autograph of Raou-laina.45 The codex Paris. gr. 2998, an autograph of Gregory, is a rhetorical collection which also contains works of Ailios Aristeides, along with works of Demosthenes, Ai-schines, Libanios, Themistios, and Synesios of Kyrene,46 while Gregory mentions ma-nuscripts of Demosthenes in three of his letters, and he also cites from this rhetor in his correspondence.47 Another autograph of Gregory, the codex Paris. gr. 2953, is a further testimony to his interest in Ailios Aristeides.48

Gregorys opponent, the unionist patriarch John Bekkos,49 also possessed his own copies of the ancient rhetorical works. Among the books he bequethed with his testa-ment to his spiritual son, Constantine Sinaites, we find Aristoteles Rhetoric, commen-

43 See above p. 00. 44 See Kotzabassi, Gregor, p. 7, and Constantinides, Rhetoric, p. 46 (both with references to Grego-

rys correspondence). 45 Cf. Kotzabassi, S., Scholarly Friendship in the Thirteenth Century: Patriarch Gregorios II Kyprios

and Theodora Raoulaina, Parekbolai 1 (2011), 137-38 and 157, lines 10-13 (text). On Theodora Raoulaina, see PLP 10943, and on Vatic. gr. 1899, see Turyn, Codices Vaticani, pp. 63-65.

46 See Harlfinger, D., Einige Aspekte der handschriftlichen berlieferung des Physikkommentars des Simplikios, in Hadot, I. (ed.), Simplikios: sa vie, son oeuvre, sa survie, Berlin/New York 1987, pp. 277-78.

47 Cf. Kotzabassi, Gregor, pp. 6-7. 48 See Prez Martn, I., El patriarca Gregorio de Chipre (ca. 1240-1290) y la transmisin de los textos clsicos

en Bizancio, Madrid 1996, pp. 32-36. 49 On John Bekkos, see PLP no. 2548.

10

taries on Hermogenes On Staseis and On Ideas, as well as on Aphthonios Progymna-smata, and the Declamations of Libanios.50 None of these books has been yet identified in the surviving manuscripts.

Demosthenes, Ailios Aristeides, Libanios and Synesios of Kyrene were especially popular among the scholars of the time. About 18 manuscripts containing works of these rhetors were copied in the first half of the 14th century in Thessaloniki, the se-cond city and major cultural center of the Empire,51 and are more or less linked to the circle of Demetrios Triklinios, who has already been mentioned for his copy of Aph-thonios and Hermogenes.52 Triklinios prepared two manuscripts with works of Syne-sios (Paris. Mazarine 4453 and Laur. Plut. 80.19),53 while he participated in the copying of three manuscripts with works of Libanios (Mosqu. Synod. gr. 489, Neap. II.E.17, and Vatic. gr. 83).54 Another member of the Triklinios family, Nikolaos Triklines (Deme-trios brother?), prepared a collection with works of Demosthenes, Libanios, and Ailios Aristeides preserved in the codex Escor. R.I.2055 and participated in the copying of the codices Vatic. gr. 81, 83, and 941 containing works of Libanios.56 John Katrares, who was also active in Thessaloniki in the first half of the 14th century, copied the codex Vatic. gr. 1299 with works of Ailios Aristeides,57 and he was also one of the copyists of the codex Vatic. gr. 224, a collection of Lucian, Libanios, and Ailios Aristeides.58

In the case of the bibliophile John Chortasmenos we observe a certain predilection for Libanios. The codex Ambrosianus L 64 sup., containing works of Libanios, was in Chortasmenos possession, while the codex Vatic. Chis. R.VI.43 is partly an autograph of his and Vatic. gr. 939 contains marginalia and corrections by his hand.59

50 See Kotzabassi, S., The Testament of John Bekkos, 32 (2012), 28-29 and 34, lines 51-58

(text). 51 On Thessaloniki as a cultural centre in the 14th century, see Constantinides, C.N,

14 , 21 (1992), 133-50, Leontiades, I.G, Gelehrtenkreise im Thessalonike der Palaiologenzeit, in . 50 (1939-1989), Thessaloniki 1992, pp. 245-55, and Tinnefeld, Fr., Intellectuals in Late Byza-ntine Thessalonike, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 57 (2003), 153-72.

52 See above, p. 00. 53 See Bianconi, Tessalonica, pp. 106, 180, and 249. 54 See Bianconi, Tessalonica, pp. 116-17, 181, and 249. 55 On Nikolaos Triklines, see PLP no. 29315. On the collection, see Bianconi, Tessalonica, pp. 128, 134,

180, and 251. 56 See Bianconi, Tessalonica, pp. 116-17, 129-30, 134, 180, 181, and 251. 57 On John Katrares, see PLP no. 11544. On the manuscript, see Turyn, Codices Vaticani, p. 128. See also

Bianconi, Tessalonica, pp. 146, 180, and 250. 58 See Bianconi, Tessalonica, pp. 148-49, 180, and 250. 59 See Hunger, Chortasmenos, p. 52.

11

A complete list of the rhetorical manuscripts produced or owned by scholars of the Palaiologan period cannot, of course, be given within the limits of this chapter. One last example takes us to the end of the period, when John Dokeianos, a person known mainly from his rhetorical works addressed to members of the family of the Palaiolo-goi,60 copied part of the codex Ambrosianus G 69 sup., which contains works of Aischi-nes, Ailios Aristeides, Themistios and Demosthenes.61 The manuscript was in Dokeia-nos possession; on fol. 344 we read an autograph catalogue of the books that formed part of his personal library: among them we find Hermogenes Rhetoric, as well as a volume with Themistios Orations.62

Except for the models of the distant past, the scholars of the Palaiologan period also kept in contact with specimens of oratory from earlier eras of Byzantine history, and especially from the Comnenian period.63 Notes in the margins of the famous Esco-rial manuscript Y.II.10 with 12th-century rhetorical works are an indication that the manuscript circulated in late Byzantium and it was available to the rhetors of the ti-me.64 The codex Bodleianus Barocci 131 is a manuscript of the second half of the 13th century, which also contains rhetorical works of the 11th and 12th centuries, as well as parts of Menanders treatise De epideicticis,65 and quite similar is the case with the codex Vindobonensis Philosophicus Graecus 321, which was copied in Constantinople around the same period and contains works by court authors from the middle of the 13th century, along with rhetorical works of 12th-century authors.66 The exact impact of earlier Byzantine oratory on the works of the rhetors of the Palaiologan period has yet to be investigated.

The first stage of rhetorical training comprised the composition of rhetorical exer-cises based on the models provided by Hermogenes, and especially Aphthonios in their Progymnasmata, that is a set of 14 exercises arranged according to their difficulty,

60 On John Dokeianos, see PLP no. 5577. For his rhetorical works, see below. 61 For the table of contents (probably by the hand of Dokeianos), see Lampros, Sp.,

, 1 (1904), 305-307. 62 For the catalogue of Dokeianos library, see Lampros, , pp. 300-301. 63 See Angelov, Imperial Ideology, p. 56, and Spingou, F., Words and Artworks in the Twelfth Century and

Beyond. The Thirteenth-Century Manuscript Marcianus gr. 524 and the Twelfth-Century Dedicatory Epigrams of Works of Art, Diss. Oxford 2012, pp. 63-71 (both with references to older literature).

64 For the manuscript, see De Andrs, G., Catlogo de los cdices Griegos de la Real Biblioteca de el Escorial, Madrid 1965, pp. 120-31.

65 For the manuscript, see Wilson, N.G., The Date and Origin of Ms. Barocci 131, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 59 (1966), 305-306, and id., A Byzantine Miscellany: Ms. Barocci 131 Described, Jahrbuch der sterreichischen Byzantinistik 27 (1978), 157-79.

66 For the manuscript, see Hunger, H., Katalog der griechischen Handschriften der sterreichischen Natio-nalbibliothek. Teil 1: Codices historici, codices philosophici et philologici, Vienna 1961, pp. 408-19.

12

from the most simple to the most complicated one.67 Teachers of rhetoric composed their own sets of progymnasmata for their teaching purposes, but complete sets are rather rare, and in most of the cases we have to do with more or less free-standing examples on certain chapters of Aphthonios, which are not always linked directly to the school praxis.

Gregory of Cyprus wrote, probably during his student years, 17 fables (mythoi), a tale (diegema) on the sacrifice of Iphigeneia, and a characterisation (ethopoiia).68 These exercises have a relatively sparse manuscript transmission compared to Gregorys la-ter rhetorical works, among which we also find two small rhetorical exercises: a chreia on Socrates saying that the reason is the virtuous creator of the soul,69 and an enco-mium of the sea, which praises the goods of water for the human life and is probably owing to Gregorys origin from an island.70

A complete set of progymnasmata survives under the name of George Pachymeres, the famous historian of the early Palaiologan period.71 It is not clear whether Pachy-meres composed these exercises during his student years, like Gregory of Cyprus, or later, as rhetor of the Church.72 Some of the topics he deals with had already been treated by earlier authors of progymnasmata: this is, e.g., the case with his diegema on Odysseus and Palamedes, a subject also treated by Nikephoros Basilakes in the 12th century,73 as well as his gnome on Demosthenes saying that money is the driving force in all things,74 and his comparison (synkrisis) between the olive-tree and the vine.75 In the chapter on ekphrasis Pachymeres describes an equestrian statue of Justinian I

67 For the progymnasmata, see Hunger, Literatur, vol. 1, pp. 92-120. 68 On Gregorys progymnasmata, see Kotzabassi, S., Die Progymnasmata des Gregor von Zypern. Fa-

beln, Erzhlung und Ethopoiie, 43 (1993), 45-63. 69 For the text of the chreia, see Boissonade, Anecdota Graeca, vol. 2, pp. 269-73. 70 For the encomium of the sea, see Patrologia Graeca, vol. 142, cols. 433-44. For Gregorys motives for

the composition of the text, cf. Kotzabassi, Gregor, p. 11. 71 On George Pachymeres, see PLP no. 22186. See also Lampakis, St., ,

: , Athens 2004. For the edition of the progymnasmata, see Walz, Rheto-res Graeci, vol. 1, pp. 551-96. For an analysis of the texts, see Lampakis, , pp. 136-50.

72 See Lampakis, , p. 136. According to P. Golitsis, George Pachymre comme didascale. Essai pour une reconstitution de sa carrire et de son enseignement philosophique, Jahrbuch der ster-reichischen Byzantinistik 58 (2008), 62 (with n. 46), Pachymeres could have succeeded Manuel Holobolos as rhetor of the Church after 1273, when the latter was forced to abandon his post, because of his oppo-sition to the Union of the Churches.

73 See Taxidis, I., Die Episode des Palamedes in den byzantinischen Progymnasmata, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 102 (2009), 731-37.

74 See Lampakis, , pp. 140-41. 75 See Lampakis, , p. 146.

13

standing in front of the Augusteion, and derives from the 6th-century historian Proko-pios.76

The church historian Nikephoros Kallistou Xanthopoulos wrote progymnasmata for the purposes of his rhetorical teaching, as it is evident from the title that accompanies these pieces in the unique manuscript they survive.77 Only the examples on the first four chapters of Aphthonios (fable, tale, chreia and gnome) have come down to us, but there is a strong possibility that Nikephoros had written examples on all of Aphtho-nios chapters.78 It is interesting to note that in the case of gnome Nikephoros analyses a saying opposite to the one treated by Pachymeres, and praises (based on a citation from Gregory of Nazianzos) the goods of poverty and humbleness.79 All four pieces te-stify to Xanthopoulos strong dependence on Aphthonios.80

The progymnasmata of Constantine Akropolites form a rather exceptional case. Con-stantine was the elder son of George Akropolites, as he is mostly known for his rheto-rical reworkings of older hagiographical texts, thanks to which he was given the attri-bute Neos Metaphrastes.81 Like many of his hagiographical works, his progymnasma-ta seem also to have been written on instigation of Akropolites friends and may not have served teaching purposes, as it has been suggested.82 The collection consists of 14 pieces, which correspond to seven of Aphthonios chapters (fable,83 tale,84 vitupera-tion,85 comparison,86 characterisation,87 ekphrasis,88 and thesis89). Worth mentioning is Akropolites predilection for religious topics, especially in his five characterisations, a tendency also known from the 12th-century rhetor Nikephoros Basilakes,90 although

76 See Lampakis, , pp. 147-48. 77 On Nikephoros Kallistos Xanthopoulos, see PLP no. 20826. For his progymnasmata, see Glettner, J.,

Die Progymnasmata des Nikephoros Kallistos Xanthopulos, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 33 (1933), 1-22, 255-70 (for the interpretation of the title, see pp. 4-5).

78 Cf. Glettner, Xanthopulos, pp. 6-7. 79 See Glettner, Xanthopulos, pp. 10-12, 264-68. 80 Cf. Glettner, Xanthopulos, pp. 268-69. 81 On Constantine Akropolites, see PLP no. 520. 82 See Romano, Etopee inedite, p. 313 (with n. 19). Constantinides (Higher education, p. 101) sugge-

sted that Akropolites progymnasmata could have been composed for ecclesiastical students. 83 See Papadopoulos-Kerameus, A., , -

3 (1891), 445-50. 84 Unedited in the codex Jerusalem, Patriarchal Library, Hieros. gr. 40, fols. 8r-12r. 85 Unedited in the codex Hieros. gr. 40, fols. 12r-13v. 86 Ed. Ph. Photopoulos, in 11 (1911), 863-64. 87 Ed. Romano, Etopee inedite. 88 Ed. Ph. Photopoulos, in 12 (1912), 279-80. 89 Ed. Ph. Photopoulos, in 11 (1911), 864-69. 90 See Hunger, Literatur, vol. 1, pp. 112-13.

14

we do not find any common topics between the two authors. Akropolites recon-structs, e.g., Lazaros words after his resurrection or the reaction of Constantine the Great after his healing from leprosy; the idea of salvation of the Christian through God is common in all these pieces.91

A series of free-standing rhetorical exercises based on the relevant progymnasma-ta also survives from the Palaiologan period. These pieces often surpassed the mere school purposes and formed literary works of their own merit. The school environ-ment still lies behind Maximos Planoudes lengthy synkrisis between Winter and Spring,92 since the four seasons offered a suitable topic for many chapters of the progy-mnasmata, as it is evident from the surviving examples. A comparison between Winter and Summer can be found, e.g., in the model exercises of Nikolaos the Sophist, and it proves the superiority of the former over the latter.93 Planoudes text also highlights the merits of Winter against the shortcomings of Spring, but his arguments go far be-yond those found in the rhetorical handbooks. Moreover, Planoudes text should rather be read as part of a literary controversy, for it is supposed to be a response to a contemporary rhetorical work, which supported the opposite view.94

The comparison between Demosthenes and Ailios Aristeides by Theodore Metochi-tes was not, of course, conceived as a school exercise.95 Metochites composed this text in 1330-31, at the age of 60, after his release from the exile in Didymoteichon and his retirement in the Chora monastery.96 This kind of synkrisis went back to Dionysios of Halikarnassos and his comparison between Isaios and Lysias, while the analysis of the literary merits of the ancient rhetors was a subject treated by many late antique authors, such as Lucian, Plutarch, Sopatros, and Hermogenes, as well as by Byzantine ones, among them Photios and Michael Psellos.97 Demosthenes was regarded as the

91 Cf. Romano, Etopee inedite, p. 319. 92 For the text, see Boissonade, Anecdota Graeca, vol. 2, pp. 310-39. Its edition by M. Treu (Maximi

monachi Planudis comparatio hiemis et veris, Progr. Gymnas. Ohlau 1878) was not accessible to me. 93 See Walz, Rhetores Graeci, vol. 1, pp. 366-67. 94 Cf. Boissonade, Anecdota Graeca, vol. 2, pp. 310, line 8-311, line 9: ,

, , , - , , , , , , - , , , , - , , .

95 On Theodore Metochites, see PLP no. 17982, as well as the relevant chapter in this volume. For the edition of the text, see Gigante, M., Teodoro Metochites. Saggio critico su Demostene e Aristide, Milan 1969.

96 For the dating of the text, see evenko, tudes, p. 143. 97 See Gigante, Saggio critico, pp. 15-19.

15

top representative of political/counseling oratory; Aristeides, on the other hand, de-voted himself to epideictic oratory, since he lived in an absolute monarchy. For Me-tochites the latter could serve as a better model for the students of his time, because they lived under the same kind of regime.98

Another type of progymnasma that gave some free-standing pieces in the Palaio-logan period was the characterisation (ethopoiia). The two texts in question date from the late 14th/early 15th century, and they are both linked to historical circumstances, something quite uncommon for Byzantine rhetoric that almost systematically avoid-ed references to contemporary reality.99 In the 1390s John Chortasmenos wrote a ficti-tious address of Tamerlan to the heads of his troops, when the Mongols were fighting against the Scyths of Tohtamy; Chortasmenos not only invents the words of Ta-merlan, but he also calls upon a supposed ear-witness.100 Some years later Manuel II Palaiologos composed another rhetorical piece, where Tamerlan is the protagonist: in a short ethopoiia Tamerlan addresses the Turkish sultan Bayazid after the defeat of the Turks in the battle of Ankara (1402),101 and blames Bayazid for not bearing his defeat like a man.

The unlimited potential of rhetoric can be verified in two more rhetorical pieces from the last century of Byzantium. They both belong to the genre of encomium, they deal with animals and they are addressed to emperors/rulers of the time. The first one comes from Demetrios Chrysoloras, who wrote an eulogy of the flea--a subject treated in the past by Michael Psellos--, and sent it to the emperor Manuel II Palaiolo-gos.102 The second one goes beyond the limits of the Byzantine era: it is an encomium

98 See Gigante, Saggio critico, p. 82, lines 1-13:

, , , , ; , - , - .

99 Cf. Hunger, Literatur, p. 70. 100 See Treu, M., Eine Ansprache Tamerlans, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 19 (1910), 15-28. See also

Hunger, Zeitgeschichte, pp. 155-56. 101 On Manuel Palaiologos, see PLP no. 21513. For the text, see Patrologia Greaca, vol. 156, cols. 580-81.

See also Hunger, Zeitgeschichte, pp. 156-57. 102 On Demetrios Chrysoloras, see PLP no. 31156. For the text, see De Andrs, G., Demetrio Crisoloras

el Palaciego, Encomio de la pulga, Helmantica 35 (1984), 51-69. See also the letter nr. 50 of Manuel Palaiologos in Dennis, G.T., The Letters of Manuel II Palaeologus (Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae, 8), Washington 1977, pp. 142-45.

16

of the dog written by Theodore Gazes and addressed to Muhammad the Conqueror.103 Gazes must have had in mind a female dog owned by Muhammad, but as he explicitly states in the epilogue, he composed this text as a kind of literary game and as a play-thing for the ruler.

Except for the progymnasmata, another type of rhetorical exercise that was cultiva-ted during the Palaiologan period was the so-called melete or gymnasia. The term mele-te was used to describe a fictitious speech, which the student composed on a given hi-storical (or mythological) situation, and which he was supposed to deliver in the name of a historical (or mythological) person; in this sense, the melete was close to the etho-poiia, but in the case of melete the emphasis was given to the complete treatment of the subject, and not so much to the depiction of the character of the speaking per-son.104 The meletai had been especially fashionable during the late antiquity, and they were composed for public recitation/performance in the theatra. Their subjects deriv-ed mainly from the speeches of Demosthenes, the Persian and the Peloponnesian wars, the history of Alexander the Great, as well as the Greek mythology. In Byzanti-um the genre had been neglected after the 6th century, and it was in the early Palaio-logan period that it found again its place in the rhetorical production of the scho-lars.105

The revival of the genre of meletai in the early Palaiologan period could be linked to the person of George Akropolites, although no relevant text of his has been preserved. However, both Gregory of Cyprus and George Pachymeres, who cultivated this genre, were Akropolites students, therefore the original inspiration could go back to him.106 Gregory of Cyprus wrote four meletai: two of them are responses to the relevant mele-tai of Libanios,107 while another one is a response to Synesios encomium of baldness.108 The meletai of George Pachymeres, on the other hand, amount to 13, and the number points probably to the authors effort to systematically revive the genre.109 Pachyme-res derives his subjects from Hermogenes On Staseis, and each one of his meletai corre-sponds to a different stasis.110 Two of the texts refer to historical personalities (Demo-

103 On the Theodore Gazes, see PLP no. 3450. For the text, see Patrologia Graeca, vol. 161, cols. 985-97. 104 On the genre of meletai in general, see Russell, D.A., Greek Declamation, Cambridge 1983. 105 Cf. Hunger, Literatur, vol. 1, pp. 93-94, and Gaul, Magistros, pp. 129-68. 106 Cf. Gaul, Magistros, p. 172. 107 They have been edited along with the works of Libanios; see Foerster, Libanii opera, vol. 6, pp. 52-

82, and ibid., vol. 7, pp. 142-79. 108 For the text, see Prez Martn, Gregorio de Chipre, pp. 361-96. 109 For the edition of the meletai, see Boissonade, J.F., Georgii Pachymeris Declamationes XIII, Paris 1848.

For an analysis of the texts, see Lampakis, , pp. 150-80, and id., -, Erytheia 28 (2007), 91-98.

110 Cf. Lampakis, , pp. 152-53.

17

sthenes, Pericles),111 while we also have examples on the supposed errors of generals and the accusations brought against them,112 on cases of distinction for bravery,113 and on several issues of social interest.114

Quite exceptional is the recently published melete of Sophonias the monk, who should be probably identified with the homonymous paraphrast of Aristotle who lived in the late 13th/early 14th century.115 Unlike its contemporary meletai, which are lin-ked to the classical tradition, Sophonias text elaborates on a subject from the New Testament, the famous discourse of the Apostle Paul in the Areopagus, thus creating a parallel to the ethopoiiai of Constantine Akropolites.116

Apart from the pedagogic role, the re-enactment of the classical past in the meletai could sometimes function on a different level, and serve as a means of making allusi-ons to contemporary reality. This has been argued for the meletai of Thomas Magi-stros, which must have been composed in the first two decades of the 14th century, and especially for the two texts that are based on Demosthenes speech Against Lepti-nes. Magistros was one of the most famous philologists of the Palaiologan era, but he is also known, as we shall see, for his political speeches.117 His six meletai draw on ancient Greek history, and they form three pairs, each subject being treated in both its positi-ve and its negative aspect.118 The example of the two Leptinean meletai shows that Ma-gistros sometimes deliberately altered the details of the original situation, in order to create parallels with the current political affairs; the author must have seen a conne-ction between the ateleiai that Leptines tried to reduce with his law, and the pronoiai that Andronikos II Palaiologos was trying to reduce in his times, in order to face the critical economic and military situation of the Empire.119

111 See Boissonade, Pachymeris Declamationes, pp. 1-19, 82-89 (meletai 1 and 5). Cf. Lampakis, -

, pp. 153-57. 112 See Boissonade, Pachymeris Declamationes, pp. 59-81, 229-48, and 249-51 (meletai 4, 12, and 13). Cf.

Lampakis, , pp. 163-70. 113 See Boissonades, Pachymeris Declamationes, pp. 90-112, 112-34, and 207-29 (meletai 6, 7, and 11). Cf.

Lampakis, , pp. 170-74. 114 See Boissonade, Pachymeris Declamationes, pp. 134-59, 159-86, and 186-207 (meletai 8, 9, and 10). Cf.

Lampakis, , pp. 174-80. 115 On Sophonias the monk, see PLP no. 26424. For the melete, see Searby, D.M./Sjrs, A., A Rhe-

torical Declamation of Sophonias the Monk and Paraphrast, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 104 (2011), 147-82. 116 Cf. above p. 00. 117 On Thomas Magistros, see PLP no. 16045, and recently Gaul, N., Thomas Magistros und die sptbyzan-

tinische Sophistik. Studien zum Humanismus urbaner Eliten in der frhen Palaiologenzeit, Wiesbaden 2011. 118 On the texts and their editions, see Gaul, Magistros, pp. 402-403. 119 See Martin, G., Rhetorical Exercise or Political Pamphlet? Thomas Magistros Exploitation of De-

mosthenes Against Leptines, Greek Roman and Byzantine Studies 46 (2006), 207-26.

18

Worth mentioning is finally a single melete by the learned emperor Manuel II Pa-laiologos. Rather than being a school exercise, the text seems to have been inspired from the same playful mood that lies behind Manuels characterisation of Tamerlan, which we have discussed above.120 The situation treated in this case has nothing to do with ancient Greek history or mythology: the author presents a drunken man appeal-ing to the court against his son--who as a ruler of the city has ordered the devastation of vineyards, in order to bring his father to reason--and seeking to prove that this is not a legitimate child of his.121 Practical uses of rhetoric: Imperial orations

The hard school training was, of course, a prerequisite for the practical uses of rheto-ric, which, as already stressed, centred on the field of epideictic oratory.122 The main genre that the Byzantines cultivated in this field was the basilikos logos (imperial ora-tion), that is an encomium addressed to the emperor, according to its definition by Menander of Laodikeia, who set out the rules for the composition of such kind of texts.123 A basilikos logos dealt with the emperors origins, his physical appearance, his virtues and his achievements in war and peace.124 Given the chiefly political function of rhetoric, it is clear that the basilikos logos was the principal medium for the propaga-tion of the official imperial ideology, since it projected the image of the ideal emperor; thus, it comes to no surprise that the specific rhetorical genre flourished throughout the Byzantine era, and gave some of its masterpieces in the Palaiologan period. The composition of imperial orations in the late Byzantine period was further supported by certain historical facts, which contributed to the revival of the genre, especially in the times of the first two Palaiologoi, Michael VIII and Andronikos II. The Palaiolo-goi were the new dynasty in the imperial throne, after the usurpation of the imperial office by Michael VIII, therefore their rule had to be legitimized. Moreover, the sei-

120 Cf. above p. 00. 121 For the text, see Boissonade, Anecdota Graeca, vol. 2, pp. 274-307. 122 See above p. 00. 123 See Menander, De epideicticis 368.3, ed. Russell/Wilson, p. 76: -

. Except for the treatise of Menander, the progymnasmata of Hermogenes and Aphthonios also contained rules on how to compose an encomium; see Rabe, H., Hermogenis Opera (Rhetores Graeci, 6) Leipzig 1913 (repr. Stuttgart 1969), pp. 14-18, and id., Aphthonii Progymnasmata (Rhetores Graeci, 10), Leipzig 1926, pp. 21-27.

124 On the character of Byzantine imperial orations in general, see Dennis, G.T., Imperial Panegyric: Rhetoric and Reality, in Maguire, H. (ed.), Byzantine Court Culture from 829 to 1204, Washington, D.C. 1997, pp. 131-40.

19

zure of power by the new dynasty coincided with the recapture of Constantinople in 1261, a fact that also had an impact on the official ideology of the Byzantine state and put its stamp on the contemporary rhetorical praxis.125

The first surviving rhetorical texts reflecting this renewed Byzantine imperial ideology are three imperial orations for Michael VIII Palaiologos penned by Manuel Holobolos.126 Holobolos has already been mentioned above as the first holder of the re-instated position of the rhetor of the Church.127 After the reconquest of Constantino-ple Michael VIII took special care in reviving imperial ceremonial; in his efforts he was supported by the patriarch Germanos III (1265-66),128 who also showed an interest in reviving neglected customs, and re-established for this purpose the post of the pro-fessional rhetorician of the patriarchate. During the Comnenian epoch the rhetors duty was to deliver panegyrics in honour of the emperor at Epiphany; the custom was slightly modified under the Palaiologoi, and the recitation of imperial panegyrics was held at Christmas.129 Holobolos must have been the first rhetor of the Church to deliver such orations in honour of the emperor in the Palaiologan period.130

Holobolos orations were delivered in the course of three subsequent years, in all likelihood 1265-1266-1267.131 The three texts were conceived to form a series, as it is evident from the fact that at the beginning of each oration the author summarizes the contents of the previous one.132 Moreover, Holobolos places his orations within the realm of the former rhetorical tradition, and describes them as verbal/annual tribu-te to the emperor according to an ancient custom, thus providing the link with the older rhetorical practices.133 Although he is aware of the rhetorical rules for the com-position of an encomium,134 nevertheless he does not follow them strictly. The first oration begins with Michaels birth and upbringing, describes his access to the throne, which is a reward for his pains for the sake of the Romans, and deals with some major events of his early reign in Asia Minor. The second oration is dedicated to the recon-quest of Constantinople and the emperors triumphal entry in the Byzantine capital; in this context Michael is described as New Constantine, that is as a new founder of

125 Cf. Angelov, Imperial Ideology, p. 42. 126 For the edition of the texts, see Treu, M., Manuelis Holoboli Orationes, Programm des Victoria Gy-

mnasiums zu Potsdam 1906-1907, pp. 30-98. 127 See above p. 00. 128 On Germanos III, see PLP no. 17091. 129 See Macrides, New Constantine, pp. 25-31, 40-41, and Angelov, Imperial Ideology, pp. 44-45. 130 Cf. Macrides, New Constantine, p. 40. 131 For the dating, see Macrides, New Constantine, pp. 19, 37 (with n. 137). 132 Cf. Macrides, New Constantine, pp. 16, 18. 133 Cf. Macrides, New Constantine, pp. 27, 30. 134 See Manuel Holobolos, Encomium I on Michael VIII, ed. Treu, Manuelis Holoboli Orationes, p. 32.16-35.

20

Constantinople,135 a title which he had assumed as part of his official signature at least since 1262.136 Finally, the third oration deals with the emperors efforts for the restora-tion of the capital and the reestablishment of the educational system. All three texts are composed in high Attic style, with lots of rare words and references to ancient literature (e.g., Homer, Pindar, Plato, Aristotle, Plutarch, even Virgil). However, there are much more references to the Scriptures, while the synkriseis of the emperor with older rulers, as it was prescribed by the rhetorical theory,137 derive almost equally from the Old Testament and the ancient history.138

Holobolos encomia on Michael VIII are the only imperial orations of the Palaiolo-gan period that are known to have been delivered within the fixed annual cycle of court ceremonial. Although the genre flourished much more under Michaels son, An-dronikos II, who is, along with Manuel I Komnenos, one of the most eulogized Byzanti-ne emperors of all times, most of the panegyrics in his honour were recited within the framework of rhetorical performances at the court, in the presence of the empe-rors entourage. In some cases we have evidence of rhetorical shows, in which the ora-tors participated and which lasted for several days. The intended audience of the ora-tions must not have been very wide, including mostly the emperor himself and members of the court, that is high officials and prominent ecclesiastics.139

Gregory of Cyprus, who has already been mentioned as a student of George Akro-polites,140 provides the link between the age of Michael VIII and Andronikos II, for he eulogized both emperors. His panegyric on Michael VIII dates from the early 1270s, when Gregory had just completed his higher education and joined the imperial clergy as protoapostolarios, probably with the intervention of Akropolites.141 In the text he pays tribute to his teacher, in praising the revival of learning in Byzantium after 1261, of which Akropolites had been the mastermind.142 The oration follows more or less the instructions of Menander and sets out with a lengthy praise of Constantinople, the imperial city and emperors fatherland;143 the praise of the Byzantine capital appears as a structural element especially in the imperial orations of the early Palaiologan pe-

135 See Manuel Holobolos, Encomium II on Michael VIII, ed. Treu, Manuelis Holoboli Orationes, p. 57.1-4. 136 See Macrides, New Constantine, pp. 23-24 (with n. 55). 137 See Menander, De epideicticis 376.31-377.9, ed. Russell/Wilson, p. 92. 138 See the table in Angelov, Imperial Ideology, p. 87. 139 See Angelov, Imperial Ideology, pp. 46-50, and Toth, Rhetorical Theatron, pp. 436-46. 140 See above p. 00. 141 For the dating of the text, see Angelov, Imperial Ideology, p. 71 (with n. 160); see also Kotzabassi,

Gregor, p. 7. 142 See above p. 00. 143 See Gregory of Cyprus, Encomium on Michael VIII, ed. Boissonade, Anecdota Graeca, vol. 1, pp. 316,

line 21-319, line 25.

21

riod, and it should be related to the impact of the reconquest of Constantinople.144 Gregory presents the course of Michaels life from his birth to his accession to the throne and the recapture of the old seat of the empire, which crowns the emperors deeds; the influence of Holobolos orations is perceptible not only in the subjects the author deals with, but even in the wording of certain passages. The panegyric on An-dronikos II, which dates from the early months of his reign, before Gregory was ele-cted patriarch in March 1283,145 is modelled on the same patterns, and focuses on the termination of the Union of Lyons, one of the first political acts of Andronikos II, which dominates the image of the emperor in the contemporary literature.146

Gregorys encomium on Andronikos II served itself as a model for later imperial orations, such as those composed by Nikephoros Choumnos and Theodore Metochites. Choumnos was the older of the two orators, and at the time of delivering the encomi-um (c.1284-1285) he held the title of koiaistor, but he soon climbed to a higher position in the court hierarchy and became mesazon.147 His panegyric follows closely that of Gregory of Cyprus--of course with variations of accent--, and adds some new features in the literary image of Andronikos II, to be repeated in later texts, such as the empe-rors mildness and his aversion towards corporeal punishment,148 as well as his fond-ness of philosophical discussions and the participation in intellectual gatherings at the court.149

It was the rhetorical skills of the twenty-year old Theodore Metochites that attra-cted Andronikos II and marked the beginning of Metochites brilliant political career, which made him the most powerful man in the Empire. Metochites two orations in honour of Andronikos II date from the 1290s.150 The first one is more traditional in its contents and structure, and bears outspoken resemblances to the older encomia of Gregory of Cyprus and Nikephoros Choumnos.151 However, Metochites knows to inno-

144 See Fenster, Laudes, pp. 185-96. 145 For the dating, see Failler, A., La restauration et la chute dfinitive de Tralles, Revue des tudes

Byzantines 42 (1984), 258-59. 146 See Gregory of Cyprus, Encomium on Andronikos II, ed. Boissonade, Anecdota Graeca, vol. 1, pp. 380,

line 15-384, line 24. 147 On Nikephoros Choumnos, see PLP no. 30961. For the edition of the text, see Boissonade, Anecdota

Graeca, vol. 2, pp. 1-56, and for its dating see Verpeaux, Nicphore Choumnos, pp. 36 (with n. 3) and 89-90. 148 See Nikephoros Choumnos, Encomium on Andronikos II, ed. Boissonade, Anecdota Graeca, vol. 2, pp.

46, line 20-47, line 12. 149 See Nikephoros Choumnos, Encomium on Andronikos II, ed. Boissonade, Anecdota Graeca, vol. 2, p.

36, lines 14-26. 150 For the edition of the texts, see Polemis, I.D., . , Athens

2007. Especially for the dating, see pp. 33-42. 151 See Polemis, , pp. 65-72.

22

vate, when he resorts to late antique authors, such as Synesios of Kyrene and Philo Ju-daeus, and presents traditional material, that is basic notions of the Byzantine imperi-al ideology, in a new light.152 The second oration is not a typical encomium according to the instructions of Menander, but falls rather in the generic category of laudatory address (prosphonetikos logos);153 it deals with the emperors expedition to Asia Minor in the years 1290-93, yet it was delivered in Constantinople some years later.154

The coronation of Andronikos son Michael IX as co-emperor on 21 May 1294 was celebrated for several days, including feasting and delivery of panegyrics. Invited by the emperor, Maximos Planoudes delivered on this occasion his Basilikos, a panegyric on Michael IX, which mixed the praise with some piece of counsel.155 This oration has been classified by the scholars as a sample of the so-called political panegyric, a genre described by Hermogenes and also discussed by Planoudes in his commentary on the Hermogenian corpus. In the counseling part of his speech the rhetor sought to influence the military policy of the future emperor and indirectly criticized Androni-kos decision to dismantle the Byzantine fleet in 1285.156

The first encounter of a rhetor with the emperor offered, of course, a suitable occa-sion for the delivery of an encomium in honour of the latter. This was the case with the first panegyric of Nikephoros Gregoras for Andronikos II, which the author ad-dressed to the emperor on occasion of their first meeting in 1321-22.157 Gregoras was a student of Metochites and entered the intellectual circles of Andronikos II probably with the intervention of his master. He wrote in total three panegyrical addresses to the old emperor, praising primarily his intellectual and rhetorical skills. The second panegyric seeks to prove that Andronikos II is a fan of Plato, thus presenting some of the emperors traditional virtues in the light of Platonic philosophy.158 The originality

152 See Polemis, , pp. 73-98. 153 See Menander, De epideicticis 414.31-418.4, ed. Russell/Wilson, pp. 164-72. 154 On the historical circumstances, see Polemis, , pp. 42-59. 155 For the edition of the text, see Westerink, L., Le Basilikos de Maxime Planude, Byzantinoslavica

27 (1966), 98-103; 28 (1967), 54-67; 29 (1968), 34-50. 156 See Angelov, D., Byzantine Imperial Panegyric as Advice Literature, in Jeffreys, E. (ed.), Rhetoric

in Byzantium, Aldershot 2003, pp. 55-63, and id., Imperial Ideology, pp. 172-79. 157 On Nikephoros Gregoras, see PLP no. 4443, and Fryde, Renaissance, pp. 357-73. For the text, which

the author later incorporated in his historical work, see Nikephoros Gregoras, Historia Romana VIII.8, ed. Schopen, vol. 1, pp. 328, line 9-339, line 20. For the dating of the text, see van Dieten, J.L., Nikephoros Gre-goras, Rhomische Geschichte, vol. 1/2, Stuttgart 1973, p. 153.

158 For the text, see Leone, Nicephori Gregorae Orationes, pp. 503-10. See also Guilland, Essai, pp. 148-49.

23

of the third oration lies rather in its linguistic form than in its contents, for Gregoras has written it in Ionic dialect.159

The unparalleled flowering of court culture during the reign of Andronikos II Pa-laiologos did not continue under his successors. The civil war of the 1340s for the succession of Andronikos III, and later the conflict between Matthaios Kantakouzenos and John V Palaiologos, along with the rapid diminishing of Byzantine territories did not offer favourable conditions for the flourishing of court oratory and intellectual life in general. Very few imperial orations survive from this period, and they rather have the form of short laudatory addresses, such as the oration of Demetrios Kydones to John VI Kantakouzenos shortly after the latters entry in Constantinople in 1347160 or the orations of Nikolaos Kabasilas for Anna of Savoy and Matthew Kantakouzenos, dating from 1347-1351 and 1354 respectively.161

It was under the learned emperor Manuel II and his son John VIII Palaiologos that court oratory, and thus the genre of imperial oration flourished again, although not to the same extent as under the first two rulers of the dynasty; but the historical circum-stances had also changed.162 Manuel himself was the addressee of four panegyrics, the earliest dating from shortly after his return to Constantinople from his long journey in the West in 1403. The text has traditionally been attributed to Isidore of Kiev, yet his authorship cannot be certain; 163 apart from the emperors pains for the sake of his subjects, the author also praises Manuel for his rhetorical skills that make him a phi-losopher in the imperial throne, just like the ideal king of Plato, a standard motif in the praises of Manuel.164 One more panegyric has recently been attributed to Manuels

159 For the text, see Leone, Nicephori Gregorae Orationes, pp. 510-15. See also Guilland, Essai, pp.

149-50. 160 On Demetrios Kydones, see PLP no. 13876, and recently Ryder, J., The Career and Writings of Demetri-

us Kydones: A Study of Fourteenth-Century Byzantine Politics, Religion and Society (The Medieval Mediterrane-an, 85), Leiden 2010. For the text, see Cammelli, G., Demetrii Cydonii ad Ioannem Cantacuzenum impe-ratorem oratio altera, Byzantinisch-Neugriechische Jahrbcher 4 (1923), 77-83.

161 On Nikolaos Kabasilas, see PLP no. 30539. For the texts, see Jugie, M. Nicolas Cabasilas, Pangyri-ques indits de Mathieu Cantacuzne et dAnne Palologine, Izvstija Russkago Archeologieskago Institu-ta v Konstantinopol 15 (1911), 112-21; see also Laurent, V., Un nouveau tmoin de la correspondance de Dmtrius Cydons et de lactivit littraire de Nicolas Cabasilas Chamatos: le codex Meteor. Barlaam 202, 9 (1936), 201-204 (different readings from the codex Barlaam 202, as well as the end of the oration on Anna of Savoy missing from the edition of Jugie).

162 This late revival of court oratory should be regarded as an effect of the Turkish defeat in the battle of Ankara, which led to a temporary halt to the expansion of the Turks, and gave Byzantines the opportunity to reconquer some territories, thus enhancing their self-confidence; see Schmitt, Kaiser-rede und Zeitgeschichte, p. 210.

163 For the text, see Polemis, Two Praises, pp. 705-13. On Isidore of Kiev, see PLP no. 8300. 164 Cf. Polemis, Two Praises, p. 713 (with n. 63).

24

friend Makarios Makres, and it must have been delivered in Thessaloniki sometime around 1408-10,165 while the other two encomia date from c.1417-18 and they were penned by Demetrios Chrysoloras166 and John Chortasmenos.167 Chrysoloras text is an important source for the emperors activity in Peloponnese in the years 1414-16 and the building of Hexamilion;168 moreover, the author extols Manuels literary achieve-ments, with reference to his works,169 thus exploiting a common motif, as already pointed out above. Interesting, on the other hand, in the case of Chortasmenos is the fact that the author provided his text with a protheoria, in which he analyses the rhe-torical character of his speech drawing on Hermogenes treatise On Ideas;170 literary analyses of this kind, not attested for earlier rhetorical texts, must have become fa-shionable in the circle of Manuel Palaiologos, as it will be clear in the case of the em-perors epitaph on his brother Theodore.171

Manuels figure is also present in some of the encomia that were written for his son, John VIII Palaiologos, who succeeded him to the throne in 1425. Of special inte-rest is the lengthy panegyric composed by Isidore of Kiev and delivered by the author himself in Constantinople sometime between Sping and September of the year 1429.172 The text reminds of the panegyrics composed in the times of Michael VIII and Andro-nikos II Palaiologos, with the extensive laus Constantinopolitana being one of the con-junctive elements with the older texts.173 Moreover, this panegyric constitutes an im-portant historical source, containing a detailed account of contemporary events, which is unusual for rhetorical texts, an indication that rhetoric assumed in this pe-

165 For the edition of the text, see Dendrinos, Ch., An Unpublished Funeral Oration on Manuel II Palaeologus, in Dendrinos, Ch./Harris, J./Charvalia-Crook, E./Herrin, J. (eds.), Porphyrogenita. Essays on the History and Literature of Byzantium and the Latin East in Honour of Julian Chrysostomides, Aldershot 2003, pp. 423-56. Dendrinos has considered the text to be an epitaph, yet it has been argued convincingly that we rather have to do with an encomium, composed while the emperor was still alive; see Polemis, Two Praises, pp. 699-704, where the text is attributed to Makarios Makres. On Makarios Makres, see PLP no. 16379.

166 See Demetrios Chrysoloras, Synkrisis between Rulers of the Old and the New Emperor Manuel Palaiolo-gos, ed. Lampros, , vol. 3, pp. 222-45.

167 See Hunger, Chortasmenos, pp. 217-24. For the dating of the text, see ibid., pp. 55-57. 168 See Demetrios Chrysoloras, Synkrisis, ed. Lampros, , vol. 3, pp.

239, line 23-245, line 3 169 See Demetrios Chrysoloras, Synkrisis, ed. Lampros, , vol. 3, p. 232,

lines 1-26. 170 For the protheoria, see Hunger, Chortasmenos, pp. 225-26. 171 See below p. 00. 172 For the edition of the text, see Lampros, , vol. 3, pp. 132-99. For

its dating, see Schmitt, Kaiserrede und Zeitgeschichte, pp. 241-42. 173 See Isidore of Kiev, Encomium on John VIII Palaiologos, ed. Lampros, -

, vol. 3, pp. 136, line 13-138, line 32. See also Fenster, Laudes, pp. 255-57.

25

riod some of the traditional functions of historiography.174 In reconstructing the glo-rious past of the City and the family of Palaiologoi, and praising in extenso the empe-rors deeds, Isidore might have aimed at breathing courage and self-confidence to his contemporary Byzantines on the eve of their definite fall.175 Furthermore, in the case of Isidores panegyric the manuscript tradition provides evidence for a redrafting of the text before its final version, a practice that is also attested for other major rhe-torical texts of this late period, and points to the importance given to these pieces, which were not always conceived as ephemeral compositions.176

Even the last Byzantine emperor, Constantine XI Palaiologos, was the addressee of at least three imperial panegyrics, not to mention some shorter prosphonematia. John Dokeianos delivered an encomium on Constantine, before the latter assuming the im-perial authority.177 The text dates from c.1441,178 and it was delivered in Constantino-ple.179 Its overall disposition is quite simple, and echoes some traditional topoi of the genre (e.g., the comparison of the volume of the subject with the sea180 or the referen-ce to Achilles apprenticeship with Cheiron, when it comes to speak about the empe-rors education181), yet it is not devoid of a certain historical value for the earlier life of the emperor (capture of Patras, first despotate in Peloponnese).182 Another encomium of Dokeianos, also delivered in Constantinople, praises Constantines benevolence towards his subjects and his efforts for the establishment of the Byzantine rule in Peloponnese,183 while a third text is defined by the author as epibaterios logos (speech of

174 See Schmitt, Kaiserrede und Zeitgeschichte, pp. 217-19. 175 See Schmitt, Kaiserrede und Zeitgeschichte, pp. 219-24 and 237-41. 176 For the different versions of Isidores text, see Mercati, G., Scritti di Isidoro, il cardinale Ruteno, e

codici a lui appartenuti (Studi e Testi, 46), Rome 1926, pp. 6-7. See also Schmitt, Kaiserrede und Zeitge-schichte, p. 214 (with n. 25), and Toth, Rhetorical Theatron, pp. 446-47.

177 For the edition of the text, see Lampros, , vol. 1, pp. 221-31. 178 For the dating, see Topping, Dokeianos, p. 5. 179 Cf. Lampros, , vol. 1, p. 228, lines 12-14. 180 See Lampros, , vol. 1, p. 223, lines 4-6; cf. Menander, De epideict-

icis 368.21-369.2, ed. Russell/Wilson, Menander Rhetor, p. 76. 181 See Lampros, , vol. 1, pp. 226, line 21-227, line 3; cf. Menander, De

epideicticis 371.23-24, ed. Russell/Wilson, Menander Rhetor, p. 82. 182 See Lampros, , vol. 1, pp. 227, line 29-229, line 8. 183 See Lampros, , vol. 1, pp. 241-46. The text has been classified by

Lampros as a letter, yet the author defines it as an encomium (cf. p. 242, lines 22-23: , ). For its delive-ry in Constantinople, cf. p. 242, lines 18-20: - ).

26

disembarkation), and was delivered on occasion of Constantines second despotate in Peloponnese, at the end of 1443.184

The last oration to discuss in this context was written by John Argyropoulos. In this case we do not have to do with a traditional imperial encomium, but rather with a theoretical text on kingship and a mirror of the ideal emperor.185 After analysing the basic imperial virtues (piety, prudence, bravery, justice, providence, mildness, intelli-gence), Argyropoulos concludes his oration with an exhortation to the emperor to intensify his efforts for the salvation of the Greeks (sic), by turning for help to the West;186 thus, the text offers an interesting mixture of epideictic and advisory oratory, standing in line with the Basilikos of Maximos Planoudes.187

Practical uses of rhetoric: Funeral orations

The second major type of epideictic oratory that was cultivated in the Palaiologan pe-riod was that of the epitaphios logos (funeral oration) in its various forms. The instru-ctions for the composition of this kind of oration were also provided by Menander, who discerned between monody, that is a threnos (lamentation) for the loss of a per-son,188 and an epitaph proper, which focused on the praise of the deceased.189 Most of the funeral orations produced during the Palaiologan period belong rather to the genre of monody,190 although the elements of mourning and praise are very often com-bined. These texts were presented in the course of a funeral or memorial service, but despite their conventional character, they provide us in some cases with useful proso-pographical and historical information. The number of funeral orations that survive from the age of the Palaiologoi amount to 74, that is more than 50 per cent of the total 142 texts, which survive from the whole Byzantine era.191 In the following, I shall give a general outline of the evolution of the genre, with reference to its main representa-tives.

The earliest funeral oration surviving from the Palaiologan period was written by Theodore Metochites and it is dedicated to empress Theodora Palaiologina, the wife of

184 See Lampros, , vol. 1, pp. 232-35 (especially for the genre of the text cf. p. 234, line 27: ). For the dating, see Toping, Dokeianos, p. 5.

185 See John Argyropoulos, Basilikos or On Kingship, ed. Lampros, , pp. 29-47. 186 See John Argyropoulos, Basilikos or On Kingship, ed. Lampros, , p. 47, lines 2-18. 187 See above p. 00. 188 See Menander, De epideicticis 434.10-437.4, ed. Russell/Wilson, pp. 200-207. 189 See Menander, De epideicticis 418.5-422.4, ed. Russell/Wilson, pp. 170-79. 190 Cf. Sideras, Grabreden, p. 245. 191 Cf. Sideras, Grabreden, p. 245.

27

Michael VIII, who passed away on 4 March 1303.192 The oration was delivered during the empresses burial,193 in the presence of her son, Andronikos II, to whose grief the author makes special reference.194 Metochites develops his subject--according to the rhetorical theory--on two levels, those of the present and past,195 which alternate with each other: on the level of the present he extols the enormity of the bereavement for all the Romans,196 while on the level of the past he praises the virtues of the deceased empress, with reference to her philanthropy and her role in the restoration of chur-ches and monasteries.197 A further text of Metochites, which has often been classified as an epitaph, is concerned with Joseph the Philosopher and was written after 1328; its literary character could be better described, if we define it as an encomium in the form of an epistle.198

Except for the emperors and empresses, a substantial number of funeral orations in the Palaiologan period were dedicated to other members of the imperial family. The two sons of Andronikos II, John and Michael IX Palaiologos,199 who died in 1307 and 1320 respectively, were honoured with more than one epitaph each. Alexios Lam-penos, a person known only from his funeral orations for members of the Palaiologan family,200 composed in total four monodies in honour of John Palaiologos, each one lin-ked to a different occasion (announcement of death, memorial services, translation of mortal remains).201 All four texts share with each other common motives and stylistic devices, with the topos of mors immatura--John died at the age of 21--being the domi-nant one; the balance between lamentation and praise varies in each case, but the en-comiastic element prevails over the wailing as the time lapses.202 The situation is

192 On Theodora Palaiologina, see PLP no. 21380. For the edition of the text, see Sideras, 25 unedierte

Grabreden, pp. 249-67. See also Sideras, Grabreden, pp. 262-64. 193 Cf. Sideras, Grabreden, p. 264. 194 See Sideras, 25 unedierte Grabreden, pp. 260, line 29-261, line 27. 195 See Menander, De epideicticis 435.16-436.10, ed. Russell/Wilson, p. 204. 196 See, e.g., Sideras, 25 unedierte Grabreden, pp. 252, line 10-253, line 25, and 255, line 7-257, line 11. 197 See, e.g., Sideras, 25 unedierte Grabreden, pp. 257, line 12-258, line 7, and 259, line 15-260, line 12.

See also Talbot, A.M., Empress Theodora Palaiologina, Wife of Michael VIII, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 46 (1992), 295-303.

198 For the edition of the text and its dating, see Treu, M., Der Philosoph Joseph, Byzantinische Zeit-schrift 8 (1899), 1-64. For its literary character, see the discussion in Sideras, Grabreden, pp. 55-56.

199 See PLP 21475 and 21529 respectively. 200 On Alexios Lampenos, see PLP no. 14423. 201 For the edition of the texts, see Lampros, Sp.,

, 11 (1914), 386-400. See also Sideras, Grabreden, pp. 275-79, and Taxidis, I., Les monodies et les oraisons funbres pour la mort du despote Jean Palolo-gue, Medioevo Greco 9 (2009), 267-84.

202 Cf. Taxidis, Les monodies, pp. 271-72.

28

similar with the orations on the death of Michael IX Palaiologos: John Staphidakis composed a monody to be delivered probably during Michaels funeral in Thessaloni-ki,203 a text which is full of apostrophes to persons, cities, and elements of nature, in order to participate in the lamentation for the death of the co-emperor.204 A second monody, written by Theodore Hyrtakenos, was delivered in Constantinople on occasi-on of a memorial service for Michael;205 in this case the author turns the threnos into an indirect encomium of the deceased, using a lot of citations from/allusions to anci-ent Greek literature, which serve sometimes as a mere display of Hyrtakenos eruditi-on.206

A special reference should be made to the funeral orations on two prominent intel-lectuals and statesmen of the early Palaiologan period, Nikephoros Choumnos and Theodore Metochites. Choumnos died in 1327 and was honoured with an epitaph by Theodore Hyrtakenos, with whom he was also in correspondence. The intellectual merits of the deceased are in this case in the foreground, yet the encomium culmi-nates in Choumnos relationship with the emperor Andronikos II, which is presented as the crown of his bliss.207 In the epitaph on Theodore Metochites by Nikephoros Gregoras, which was delivered probably by the author himself during Metochites burial, the close relationship between Metochites and Andronikos II is the main subject; the temporal proximity of the death of the two men--Metochites died exactly one month after the emperor--must have also played a role in the choice of this point of emphasis.208

Nikephoros Gregoras integrated in his historical work two more epitaphs dedicated to the two emperors of his time, Andronikos II and Andronikos III Palaiologos. The epitaph on Andronikos II was delivered, as the author explicitly states, on the second day after the emperors death (that is on 14/15 February 1332) on instigation of the latters daughter Simonis. Gregoras defines his text as threnos and follows closely Me-nanders instruction for the composition of monodies, according to which the author of a monody should present the encomium of the deceased as the occasion for the la-

203 On John Staphidakis, see PLP no. 26734. For the edition of the text, see Meschini, A., La monodia di Stafidakis, Padova 1974. See also Sideras, Grabreden, pp. 280-82.

204 Cf. Taxidis, Les monodies, pp. 282-83. 205 On Theodore Hyrtakenos, see PLP no. 29507. For the edition of the text, see Boissonade, Anecdota

Graeca, vol. 1, pp. 254-68. See also Sideras, Grabreden, pp. 259-60. 206 Cf. Taxidis, Les monodies, pp. 281-82. 207 For the edition of the text, see Boissonade, Anecdota Graeca, vol. 1, pp. 282-92. See also Sideras,

Grabreden, pp. 260-61. 208 The epitaph has been incorporated by Gregoras in his historical work; see Nikephoros Gregoras,

Historia Romana X.2, ed. Schopen, vol. 1, pp. 475, line 1-481, line 13. See also Sideras, Grabreden, pp. 293-95.

29

ment.209 The encomium of Andronikos II runs on the basic topoi of Byzantine imperial ideology (wakefulness, providence, benefaction, philanthropy), and repeats some of the motifs of the orations in honour of the emperor (piety, patronage of learning), while the participation of the elements of nature in the lamentation underlines the enormity of the disaster.210 Gregoras epitaph on Andronikos III, on the other hand, was delivered in the imperial palace on the third day after the emperors death (that is on 17/18 June 1341); it displays some common motifs with the epitaph on Androni-kos II, yet it is the military virtues of Andronikos III that stay in the foreground, as well as his personal intervention in the controversy between Barlaam and Palamas in the Council of 1341.211

Among the epitaphs of the Palaiologan period the most prominent place deserves the one composed by the emperor Manuel II for his brother Theodore, the despot of Mistra. Theodore I Palaiologos was the third son of John V Palaiologos, and he was sent c.1382 as a ruler in Peloponnese, where he stayed until his death in 1407.212 Not a long time thereafter Manuel composed a lengthy epitaph for his brother, which was delivered on occasion of a memorial service in Mistra, partly by Isidore of Kiev and partly by a certain Gazes.213 With about 100 printed pages in its modern edition, it is the lengthiest epitaph of the whole Byzantine era. For the most part it is concerned with the Byzantine affairs in Peloponnese under the rule of Theodore, thus serving as an official apology for the policies of the Palaiologoi. In terms of literary structure, the text is organized basically as an encomium (praise of the fatherland and parents, na-tural gifts of the deceased, praise of the latters deeds),214 and it contains also some dialogical parts, a feature to be found mostly in metrical epitaphs.215 Furthermore, the study of the manuscript tradition reveals at least seven different stages of reworking of the text by its author, which testify to the literary value attributed to it.216 This becomes also clear from the fact that Manuel sent the epitaph to his contemporaries,

209 Cf. Menander, De epideicticis 434.18-23, ed. Russell/Wilson, Menander Rhetor, p. 202. 210 See Nikephoros Gregoras, Historia Romana X.1, ed. Schopen, vol. 1, pp. 465, line 1-472, line 6. See

also Sideras, Grabreden, pp. 292-93. On Simonis Palaiologina, see PLP no. 21398. 211 See Nikephoros Gregoras, Historia Romana XI.11, ed. Schopen,vol. 1, pp. 560, line 8-565, line 13. See

also Sideras, Grabreden, pp. 295-97. 212 On Theodore I Palaiologos, see PLP no. 21460. 213 The text has been edited by Julian Chrysostomides, Manuel II Palaeologus. Funeral Oration on his

Brother Theodore (Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae, 26), Thessaloniki 1985. See also Sideras, Grab-reden, pp. 315-20.

214 For the structure of the text, see Chrysostomides, Manuel Palaeologus, pp. 61-62, and Leonte, Rheto-ric in Purple, pp. 245-287.

215 Cf. Sideras, Grabreden, p. 316 (with n. 13). 216 Cf. Chrysostomides, Manuel Palaeologus, pp. 43-53.

30

among them Guarino of Verona and Manuel Chrysoloras, asking for their criticism. In fact, Chrysoloras replied with a long epistolary treatise, which analyses the literary merits of Manuels work in terms of content and style.217 Two shorter protheoriai on the content and literary character of the oration were penned by George Gemistos Plethon218 and Ioasaph of Ephesos.219

Manuel Palaiologoss epitaph marked the beginning of a new flourishing of the rhe-torical genre during the first half of the 15th century. We have in total 40 epitaphs surviving from this period, which proves to be the richest in the production of funeral orations compared to the whole Byzantine era.220 Two of the texts are dedicated to Manuel himself, who died in 1425; the one was penned by his friend Makarios Ma-kres,221 while the other is the work of Bessarion.222 Both texts were delivered on the tomb of the emperor during a memorial service, which, however, cannot be further specified. Interesting in both of them is the address of the rhetor to the letters, which should lament on the loss of their wise patron.

Ten out of the forty Byzantine epitaphs of the 15th century were produced in Mi-stra for prominent persons of the despotate.223 A case to mention are the epitaphs on Kleopa Palaiologina, the early deceased wife of the despot Theodore II Palaiologos.224 Kleopa died on Good Friday of the year 1433, and she was honoured with at least five funeral orations written by scholars of the time, among them Bessarion and George Gemistos Plethon.225 Most of the orations praise the dead princess for her piety, her devotion to her husband, and her love for thy neighbour; Plethons text stands alone for the absence of lament and its final digression on the immortality of the soul.226

Both Plethon and Bessarion, who have been mentioned so far as authors of epi-taphs, were honoured in their turn with funeral orations by their contemporaries.

217 See Patrinelis, G./Sophianos, D., -

, Athens 2001. On Manuel Chrysoloras, see PLP no. 31165. 218 See Chrysostomides, Manuel Palaeologus, pp. 67-69. On Plethon, see PLP no. 3630. 219 See Chrysostomides, Manuel Palaeologus, p. 70. On Ioasaph of Ephesos, see PLP no. 8916. 220 See Sideras, Grabreden, pp. 63 and 245. 221 For the edition of the text, see Sideras, 25 unedierte Grabreden, pp. 299-307. See also Sideras,

Grabreden, pp. 344-45. 222 The text has been edited by Sp. Lampros, , vol. 3, pp. 284-90; see

also Sideras, Grabreden, pp. 361-62. On Bessarion, see below. 223 Cf. Sideras, Grabreden, pp. 463-64. 224 On Kleopa Palaiologina, see PLP no.